In the US, we'll have to fight it in the courts

[SigmaTheZeta]

Legislative victory? HAHAHAHAHA, no. It's going to have to be decided in the courts, at least in the USA.

It's going to be a while, I think, before we have the organizational muscle for winning court battles. If we can build up our organizational muscles strong enough, then I am absolutely certain that our community could muster funds to get someone through a court battle if that person had a good case. At minimum, we might be able to get guaranteed our right to privacy to do what we choose within the privacy of our own homes. We already have a settled case that provides stare decisis: it's not the outcome of Lawrence v. Texas that is important, but it's the argument used for winning it, which is the constitutional right to privacy.

However, before we can even think about that, we have to get our organizational muscles built up enough that we could raise funds for a strong legal defense and potentially a protracted court battle.

If we are going to start to fight back, I mean REALLY fight back, then we are going to fight in the most distinctly American way that is humanly possible: we're going to have to hire some attorneys and sue.

 

[JT Bullitt]

If we are going to start to fight back, I mean REALLY fight back, then we are going to fight in the most distinctly American way that is humanly possible: we're going to have to hire some attorneys and sue.

And also publicly release our names and personal info so we can end up being targeted and harassed by everyone from overzealous white knights to government agents. Personally, I'm not willing to do that, as I'm sure the vast majority of members here would agree.

I see it as similar to moonshining and bootlegging. Keep it secret, be extremely careful who you include in your circles, and don't give "them" any reason to suspect you.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

We have a strong legal precedent. The right to privacy has stood up in the courts before.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Furthermore, you do not have to publicize your name to help support someone's legal defense.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

And plus I would point out to you that there is not really anything shameful about what we do. We ought to stand up against those self-righteous narcissistic scum on every front that we possibly can!

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

And stop living in a fantasy world where the bad guys can never get you as long as you hide and lay low. In the long-run, that doesn't work. There can only really be safety in numbers, and that can only happen if we start organizing now.

 

[mares4me]

Good luck with that. Society will never accept us.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Good luck with that. Society will never accept us.

It's not a matter of society, but it's a matter of coordinating a legal fight in the courts. If we can get a strong team of attorneys behind someone that recently got convicted, we can initiate the appeals process, and in a court of appeals, any law made against us would have to be null and void based on the same right to privacy that was established by Lawrence v. Texas. Once we successfully appealed one case, the precedent would be established.

I'm not saying we ought to move forward on that, starting right now. I am saying we have to start getting our shit together starting literally half a century ago, so someday down the line, when someone inevitably was convicted based on that person being a zoophile, that person would have a strong network of allies ready to launch a legal defense. This would have to be years in the making, though.

It's going to have to start, like I have been harping on a lot, with local level organization. Trust me, face-to-face communication is safer than any encryption if you know and trust the person in question. It works in practice ONLY if you are willing to be patient while spending years getting to know that person starting with an awkward Telegram chat.

 

[UR20Z]

So who gets to be the sacrificial victim? Because no matter how things turn out, whoever it is will be fucked for life (and not in a good way). As will his/her critters.

 

[Zoo50]

Legislative victory? HAHAHAHAHA, no. It's going to have to be decided in the courts, at least in the USA.

It's going to be a while, I think, before we have the organizational muscle for winning court battles. If we can build up our organizational muscles strong enough, then I am absolutely certain that our community could muster funds to get someone through a court battle if that person had a good case. At minimum, we might be able to get guaranteed our right to privacy to do what we choose within the privacy of our own homes. We already have a settled case that provides stare decisis: it's not the outcome of Lawrence v. Texas that is important, but it's the argument used for winning it, which is the constitutional right to privacy.

However, before we can even think about that, we have to get our organizational muscles built up enough that we could raise funds for a strong legal defense and potentially a protracted court battle.

If we are going to start to fight back, I mean REALLY fight back, then we are going to fight in the most distinctly American way that is humanly possible: we're going to have to hire some attorneys and sue.

I agree that the courts are the best chance zoos have of nullifying all these unjust anti-zoo laws that have been made in recent years, in states like Nevada and Kentucky. There are some very powerful anti-zoo organizations (such as the Humane Society of the United States) that are pushing through their bigoted agenda of banning sex with animals in every state, and no one is stopping them so far.

If someone gets arrested for having sex with an animal, they become outed as a zoo -- it is that person who should fight the law in courts, as such a person would have already been outed.

There are a lot of arguments that could be made in favor of zoo, and counterarguments against stupid reasons people made the anti-zoo laws in the first place. For example, one of the reasons people make the anti-zoo laws is that animals can't "consent" -- it can be pointed out in court that animals don't "consent" to anything (such as artificial insemination and spaying/neutering), therefore the anti-zoo laws are discriminatory.

A zoo victory is only needed in one state for it to be a victory. Unfortunately, there are a lot of pessimists (among zoos).

 

[knotinterested]

There are a lot of arguments that could be made in favor of zoo, and counterarguments against stupid reasons people made the anti-zoo laws in the first place. For example, one of the reasons people make the anti-zoo laws is that animals can't "consent" -- it can be pointed out in court that animals don't "consent" to anything (such as artificial insemination and spaying/neutering), therefore the anti-zoo laws are discriminatory.

A zoo victory is only needed in one state for it to be a victory. Unfortunately, there are a lot of pessimists (among zoos).

Yes but in a court when that point is trying to be made all the judge has to do is to rule it as being not relevant to the case and it is immediately dismissed. Judges can say what is a point in a valid argument and by that they control what is allowed. True this is unfair but that's the way it is. So I would say that there would need to be many other avenues and examples in order to circumvent that action.

 

[UR20Z]

Unfortunately, there are a lot of pessimists (among zoos).

You spelled "realists" wrong. This ain't fantasy island, kiddo... There are literal LIVES on the line in this little soiree you're contemplating. Lives that can't fight back. The two-leggers who might be involved have something that at least resembles a chance. Their animals have no such chance. At the very least, they'll be taken away and mutilated before being handed to somebody else - *IF* "somebody else" can be found after they've been "tainted" and "psychologically scarred" by the fact that they've been a human's sexual partner. More likely, they'll simply be killed.

Dunno about you, but as someone who has multiple critter partners who look to me for their care and well-being, that's simply not acceptable. In other words, I've got actual "skin in the game". Can you claim the same? Or are you yet another in the string of hundreds, maybe even thousands, I've seen online over the years who scream "gotta win zoo rights!" but don't have so much as a goldfish in their care?

 

[knotinterested]

I think that a lot of us would probably keep quiet just because in a sense we are protecting our animal partners. And if we stand up and lose then we would not only lose the fight but also our partners would lose their lives

 

[UR20Z]

I think that a lot of us would probably keep quiet just because in a sense we are protecting our animal partners. And if we stand up and lose then we would not only lose the fight but also our partners would lose their lives

And I think you're absolutely correct.

The well-being of my critters is a higher priority - much, Much , MUCH , *MUCH* higher - than any possible "benefit" there could ever be if I were known to be an animal fucker by the general public.

And exactly what benefit would there be, I wonder? Being able to walk down the street announcing to all and sundry that I fuck my <pick any of the several species I've been intimate with>? So what... I wouldn't do that even if sex with animals became not only legal, but actively encouraged by the powers that be. Hell, I wouldn't even do it if my partner was a human, fercrissake! Who or what I have sex with is nobody's business but mine and whoever/whatever I'm partnering. I'd be able to fuck my dog in the middle of the town square at high noon? As if I'd WANT to!

Tell me, someone, exactly why I should care about the legality (assuming I'm not doing something stupid enough to get me busted for it) of sex with an animal. No, that's not a rhetorical request - I'm dead serious. Aside from the self-evident "they can't bust you for fucking Fido", WHY DO I CARE if sex with one of my animal partners is or isn't legal? Nobody - And I mean *ABSOLUTELY NOBODY* - who has even the slightest ability to affect me and mine knows anything about my sex life, and unless I do something incredibly stupid, they never will. So why do I care what "The Law" has to say about it? Or what anybody other than me thinks of it?

 

[caikgoch]

Tell me, someone, exactly why I should care about the legality (assuming I'm not doing something stupid enough to get me busted for it) of sex with an animal.

Mr Hands. He died because he feared the exposure that going to the hospital would bring.

 

[UR20Z]

Mr Hands. He died because he feared the exposure that going to the hospital would bring.

Sorry, no points (or sympathy) for that one from me.

At the time of the incident, animal sex was legal in the state of Washington. Or have you forgotten the fact that when the cops and prosecutor tried to find something - ANYTHING - to hang on the others involved in the case, the best they could come up with was trespassing?

Mr. Hands did indeed die - no argument. Bummer for him. Even bigger bummer for zoos living in the state of Washington, since his death was the direct cause of the law that makes sex with animals a felony.

The problem lies with the fact that I can't say what he actually died of without my message being lost in the automatic "You're such a heartless monster! You should go kill yourself!" reaction my saying it would cause. But fuck it - I ain't looking to win any popularity contests, so I will say it: Mr. Hands was a terminally stupid fence-hopping size-queen trying to earn his "Look how extreme I am!" merit badge in the "I let horses fuck me up the ass!" subcategory. Instead, he committed suicide by horse in an act that should have earned him a Darwin Award in the "Lack of spatial awareness" division. As in "Anybody with a brain knows that allowing/helping a stallion shove his cock up your ass isn't a good recipe for a long and happy life."

And the "You monster!" screams should begin in about 3...2...1...

What? No audible screams? Amazing...

I'm all for "different strokes" and all that sort of thing, and I'm fully aware that there are those who will swear blind that having a stallion ram his dick up your ass is the greatest thing in the world, but so far as I'm concerned, the act of allowing a stallion to fuck a human in the ass - especially when recording it for later distribution - is classic "Look at me! I'm so extreme! Now gimme my badge!" behavior. Nothing more, nothing less. And for the record, I'm primarily a horse person, with a literal lifetime of experience dealing with them under my belt. Would I allow even a miniature horse to ass-fuck me? Not a prayer. Somebody wants to do it, more power to 'em I guess, but don't expect any sympathy from me when it goes bad. Any more than I'd have any sympathy for somebody stupid enough to load 6 rounds into a revolver and sit down to a nice rousing game of russian roulette. (Hell, so far as that goes, anybody who'd do it with ONE round loaded, but that's a whole different rant)

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

I agree that the courts are the best chance zoos have of nullifying all these unjust anti-zoo laws that have been made in recent years, in states like Nevada and Kentucky. There are some very powerful anti-zoo organizations (such as the Humane Society of the United States) that are pushing through their bigoted agenda of banning sex with animals in every state, and no one is stopping them so far.

If someone gets arrested for having sex with an animal, they become outed as a zoo -- it is that person who should fight the law in courts, as such a person would have already been outed.

There are a lot of arguments that could be made in favor of zoo, and counterarguments against stupid reasons people made the anti-zoo laws in the first place. For example, one of the reasons people make the anti-zoo laws is that animals can't "consent" -- it can be pointed out in court that animals don't "consent" to anything (such as artificial insemination and spaying/neutering), therefore the anti-zoo laws are discriminatory.

A zoo victory is only needed in one state for it to be a victory. Unfortunately, there are a lot of pessimists (among zoos).

Yes. The chief advantage to fighting it out in the courts is that someone to whom it applies has already been outed and has a lot less to lose. Getting that person's case appealed shouldn't be too hard with a team of talented attorneys. Those laws are a clear breach of our constitutional right to privacy. We might not win our first appeal on this basis, but just getting it admitted into court would set a precedent for future appeals. It's a big deal just to get an appeal.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

@UR20Z, The path I am proposing would involve you having local contacts that would help spring you out of jail and come to rescue your animals. If you knew even just one local zoophile, that person could at least rehome your dog, even if that person couldn't come up with bail.

This is why I keep on harping on organizing locally. The reason why we have to is that, if the cops ever actually DID break down the door and arrest someone that was genuinely minding their own business with their animals, then that person's life and the lives of her animals would basically be destroyed if that person were isolated. If that person had a half-dozen friends in the area, alternatively, then there would be a reasonable chance that her animals could be rescued, and we might actually have a chance to get her case into the court of appeals.

A person appealing a court case does not really have to publicize how she is paying her attorney fees. This is not like running for public office. Nobody really needs to know that a zoophile appealing their case in the court of appeals is not really independently wealthy.

Your cowardice is that of an animal running to its own doom.

Strong organizations provide us with much greater long-term security.

The goal of getting a first case into the court of appeals is more like the five-year plan. Starting to build up a local group that could support fighting such a case would have to start immediately, and at that point, it would be mostly waiting for someone's luck to run out.

 

[ZTHorse]

Why not send emails to representatives who are passing anti-zoo laws? Atleast thats something and co-ordinated could have thousands of them.

Gotta start somewhere and thats low hanging fruit.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

I wouldn't be against that, @ZTHorse, but I think that coordinating with attorneys in advance would have more merit. The LGBT have an organization called Lambda Legal, for instance.

Home

We are a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and everyone living with HIV.

www.lambdalegal.org

We could set up a similar system if we could get enough money on-board and get into contact with a few sympathetic attorneys.

Your strategy worked in Finland, but fighting through the courts worked in Germany. I think that the strategies could work parallel with each other, then, but in America, in particular, I am a lot more optimistic about winning in the courts. We are a litigious country. We have the most attorneys per capita in the entire world. If that's the American way, though, then I say embrace it.

 

[ZTHorse]

I wouldn't be against that, @ZTHorse, but I think that coordinating with attorneys in advance would have more merit. The LGBT have an organization called Lambda Legal, for instance.

Home

We are a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and everyone living with HIV.

www.lambdalegal.org

We could set up a similar system if we could get enough money on-board and get into contact with a few sympathetic attorneys.

Your strategy worked in Finland, but fighting through the courts worked in Germany. I think that the strategies could work parallel with each other, then, but in America, in particular, I am a lot more optimistic about winning in the courts. We are a litigious country. We have the most attorneys per capita in the entire world.

Hmmmm. Thats interesting. Community funding is possible via cryptocurrecys. If we could build a warchest over years, then it might actually be real.

This might actually work.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Yeah, I would be totally on the side of protecting the identities of all donors and keeping them absolutely anonymous, and once we have a steady stream of donations, we could actually fathom hiring our first devoted attorney that does nothing in the world except defend us in the courts. We would have to find a sympathetic and talented attorney, though, most importantly one that thinks an appeal could be won.

 

[ZTHorse]

I believe we need to get more research done into zoophilia and have experts ready for testimony before we get into a fight.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Getting animal behaviorists to perform the research would be tough because they don't work for free and can't afford to. We would have to get together a grant and everything, and it would have to be a grant directed at a researcher based in a country where beast sex is legal. I think that if we could get a grant together for research on animal sex and how that specifically impacts the animals, then there would be some strong empirical data.

I think that another major important thing is getting at least one sympathetic attorney, maybe one that is a zoophile himself but one that doesn't actually own an animal at the time. You know how pursuing a career can get. You have to give up a lot of the things you love, and even if you have animals, they end up being left in the care of others. I am betting there is at least one attorney out there that has a history of being a zoophile, and if we could convince that person that we could afford to keep him on hire permanently as our legal representative, then that person would have financial security.

 

[ZTHorse]

On the funding backend of things, there was 50K ZV users at the peak and lets say 1/5 were actually zoo supporters. 10,000 x 100$ each for dedication for legal battles is a million dollar warchest. It is possible, really if we wanted to we could. If we were to all stand behind this and each donated that 100$ every month for a year, thats 12 million dollars.

The issue is that we have to overcome the fear! We have to do this ourselves or no one else will. We have to fund research and we have to fund small legal skirmishes until we get precedent to fight a federal case.

 

[caikgoch]

Sorry, no points (or sympathy) for that one from me.

At the time of the incident, animal sex was legal in the state of Washington. Or have you forgotten the fact that when the cops and prosecutor tried to find something - ANYTHING - to hang on the others involved in the case, the best they could come up with was trespassing?

Mr. Hands did indeed die - no argument. Bummer for him. Even bigger bummer for zoos living in the state of Washington, since his death was the direct cause of the law that makes sex with animals a felony.

The problem lies with the fact that I can't say what he actually died of without my message being lost in the automatic "You're such a heartless monster! You should go kill yourself!" reaction my saying it would cause. But fuck it - I ain't looking to win any popularity contests, so I will say it: Mr. Hands was a terminally stupid fence-hopping size-queen trying to earn his "Look how extreme I am!" merit badge in the "I let horses fuck me up the ass!" subcategory. Instead, he committed suicide by horse in an act that should have earned him a Darwin Award in the "Lack of spatial awareness" division. As in "Anybody with a brain knows that allowing/helping a stallion shove his cock up your ass isn't a good recipe for a long and happy life."

And the "You monster!" screams should begin in about 3...2...1...

What? No audible screams? Amazing...

I'm all for "different strokes" and all that sort of thing, and I'm fully aware that there are those who will swear blind that having a stallion ram his dick up your ass is the greatest thing in the world, but so far as I'm concerned, the act of allowing a stallion to fuck a human in the ass - especially when recording it for later distribution - is classic "Look at me! I'm so extreme! Now gimme my badge!" behavior. Nothing more, nothing less. And for the record, I'm primarily a horse person, with a literal lifetime of experience dealing with them under my belt. Would I allow even a miniature horse to ass-fuck me? Not a prayer. Somebody wants to do it, more power to 'em I guess, but don't expect any sympathy from me when it goes bad. Any more than I'd have any sympathy for somebody stupid enough to load 6 rounds into a revolver and sit down to a nice rousing game of russian roulette. (Hell, so far as that goes, anybody who'd do it with ONE round loaded, but that's a whole different rant)

You left out being drunk around horses. Now please explain to me how any of that is a government's business?

 

[caikgoch]

On the funding backend of things, there was 50K ZV users at the peak and lets say 1/5 were actually zoo supporters. 10,000 x 100$ each for dedication for legal battles is a million dollar warchest. It is possible, really if we wanted to we could. If we were to all stand behind this and each donated that 100$ every month for a year, thats 12 million dollars.

The issue is that we have to overcome the fear! We have to do this ourselves or no one else will. We have to fund research and we have to fund small legal skirmishes until we get precedent to fight a federal case.

You have long way to go. Someone will have administer all of that and they will have to be both trustworthy and completely identified. You can't spend the money without that step.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

On the funding backend of things, there was 50K ZV users at the peak and lets say 1/5 were actually zoo supporters. 10,000 x 100$ each for dedication for legal battles is a million dollar warchest. It is possible, really if we wanted to we could. If we were to all stand behind this and each donated that 100$ every month for a year, thats 12 million dollars.

The issue is that we have to overcome the fear! We have to do this ourselves or no one else will. We have to fund research and we have to fund small legal skirmishes until we get precedent to fight a federal case.

The fear is a rational one, but we need to redirect the fear to seeking security in numbers. Animals do one of two things when scared, either scatter or try to disappear into the herd. It's okay if people are afraid, but we have to seek strength in numbers. If you were busted right now, would you have anybody in your area that would be willing to rescue your animal? If you're like most zoos, that's what you think of first, so would you have someone local who would bust out your animal for you and make sure your animal was safe? If not, that's what we have to fix now.

 

[ZTHorse]

You have long way to go. Someone will have administer all of that and they will have to be both trustworthy and completely identified. You can't spend the money without that step.

That been solved with multi-sig wallets. So a group of zoos could start a new bitcoin address that is multi-sig, with that funding seperated from the traditional ZV funding. The money couldn't move unless the set amount of signatures from the committee was met.

If we found a zoo lawyer or some zoo who out of the fight, chose to be non-active, we could fund this person on behalf to do the leg work.

 

[caikgoch]

That been solved with multi-sig wallets. So a group of zoos could start a new bitcoin address that is multi-sig, with that funding seperated from the traditional ZV funding. The money couldn't move unless the set amount of signatures from the committee was met.

If we found a zoo lawyer or some zoo who out of the fight, chose to be non-active, we could fund this person on behalf to do the leg work.

No, it hasn't been solved. That only works for receiving the money. You can't post bond, pay gov fees, or pay lawyers in cryptocurrency. To deal in governmental functions you must have a verified identity and identifiable source for the money.

How many NPOs have you administered? Two for me.